University of Virginia Library

The Honor System

Trial Procedure Remains Unclear

By Bill Fryer
Cavalier Daily Staff Writer

Third In a Series

Ignorance of the Honor System's
procedure has caused innumerable
problems in the last few
years according to present Chairman
Whitt Clement.

An aura of mystery has surrounded
the workings of the system
during this century. Members of the
University community who have
been close to the system have
repeatedly decried the appearance
of clandestine activities by the
Honor Committee.

Representatives who comprise
the Committee have recognized the
seriousness of the communication
problem with the students and have
attempted to case this dilemma by
improving the orientation program,
publishing information through The
Cavalier Daily, and sending periodic
explanatory letters to all of the
students.

Thomas Taylor noted in his
history of the system that "the
main apparent change, a return to
secrecy, precludes knowledge of the
others except in personal conference
with the members of the
Committee. With the projected
increase in enrollment, however, it
may soon be necessary to bring the
system more out into the open for
its periodic redefinition."

Members of the Committee have
been appearing more frequently
than ever around the dormitories in
a more intensive attempt to keep
the student informed of key
provisions of the procedure.

The mechanisms of procedure
are thrown into motion when a
"student believing that a breach of
the Honor System has been committed
shall, with the assistance of
such students of the University as
he may desire to call upon,
investigate the matter as secretly
and speedily as possible."

Dismiss Demanded

If after a thorough investigation
and if, after hearing his explanation
or after he has refused to make an
explanation, the investigators are
still convinced of his guilt, they
shall demand that he leave the
University at once. Essentially, the
Committee feels that a student tries
another student whom he believes
has committed a breach of the
system in his own mind before he
makes an accusation.

The accused may then leave the
University or make an appeal for a
trial to the Honor Committee. It is
emphasized that the Committee
serves as both a judge and jury
which hears all relevant information,
but does not make an
investigation of its own into the
facts of a case.

The "Instructions to Honor
Committee Members" states that
"As a judge, he is expected to know
what the Honor System requires of
each student. He is, thereby, a
representative of the 'public
opinion of the student generation
present.' Thus, he must recognize
the limits to which the Honor
System extends and the procedures
whereby it is enforced.

"As a juror, he must be able to
weigh the facts and the testimony;
and, taking into account the presentation
and demeanor of the
witnesses, he must decide in the
light of his experience and reasonable
belief what were the facts that
really occurred."

Both the accused and the
accuser have a right of counsel in
the trial as long as counsel is a
student if either does not have a
particular choice, the Vice President
of the Law School procures
the necessary men. Both members
of the Committee and counsel are
cautioned to remove themselves
from personal prejudice.

Objectivity Sought

Until then trial members of the
Committee should remove themselves
from all information concerning
the case. Counsel for the
accused should prepare the case by
presenting all pertinent information
and not relying upon an emotional
plea.

The Committee feels that the
main object of the trial is to insure
that every person concerned with
the case has an opportunity to be
heard and questioned. This necessarily
means that the Committee
will hear all evidence that is related
to the case. Should some hearsay
or, perhaps, irrelevant evidence be
presented, the opposing counsel has
the opportunity in his closing
statement to note this qualification
and comment on the weight to be
given such evidence by the Committee
in its final deliberation.

Always the burden of proof and
persuasion beyond a reasonable
doubt rests on the accusers. However,
the accused will be expected
to submit a reasonable explanation
for his actions in the face of the
accusation. A vote of four-fifths of
the members of the Committee
present is required to convict.

The trial opens with an explanation
of procedure by the Chairman
and is followed by brief case
outlines by both counsels of the
accuser and the accused. The
accuser then presents a statement
of the facts of the case during
which his counsel is not allowed to
lead him in the presentation.

Witnesses for the accuser's side
are then heard by direct examination,
cross examination, and questions
by the Committee. The
accused then presents his side of
the case in similar fashion. At no
time is either counsel permitted to
question the character or sincerity
of any party or witness, except by a
prior showing to the Committee of
necessity and cause. All witnesses
remain in a separate room until
called.

Private Meeting

The Committee then retires for
private consultation about the facts
of the case and formulates questions
for anyone involved in the
supposed breach. When the Committee
returns, character witnesses
are heard and then questions from
the members of the Committee,
counsel, or the accuser or accused.

After this open discussion, the
accused is asked, "Sir, do you
believe that you have had a fair and
just trial?" If he answers "yes,"
discussion ceases. If the answer is
"no," the questioning continues
until such time as the accused is
satisfied that he has had a fair and
just trial. Closing statements by
both counsel are then heard before
the Committee leaves to reach a
verdict by secret ballot.

If the accused wishes a public
trial, he may have one with limited
observers who must attend all of
the trial to insure a full view of the
facts of the case.

No Personal Vendettas

The counsel for the accusers is
reminded by the Committee that
the accusers must not bring the
case solely from feelings of personal
dislike and prejudice. The accusers
must, in their own minds, be
convinced of the guilt of the
accused and must have made a
proper accusation.

If the accused is found not
guilty of a breach, all evidence -
material evidence, tapes, scratch
paper - is burned. If the accused is
found guilty, he must leave the
University. Files compiled by the
Committee and the Placement
Office are then made open to him
for possible future help. It has been
found that students who leave the
University because of honor violations
have been successful in
gaining admittance to other well
known institutions of higher learning.

The overriding consideration in
a case, according to the Committee,
is to hear all pertinent facts through
relatively informal means so that
the accused may have a fair and just
trial. If the accused is guilty, he can
only be granted a new trial upon
the presentation of new evidence
which could have altered the
decision of the Committee. If the
accused were granted a re-trial, it
would be a totally new trial before
a different committee (Vice Presidents,
Secretaries etc.)

The Trial procedure is not the
same used in a court of law.
According to current members of
the Committee, the informal process
seems to be the most satisfactory
to all from fairness standpoint.
The Committee is now
studying possible procedural improvements,
while candidates for
the positions would be expected to
give serious study to this important
area of the system.

Next: The yearly work of a
Committee and how public opinion
of a student generation is gauged.